Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

As I have said, I am not a Republican

I am a social conservative, not a fiscal conservative, and not an Attila the Hun conservative, but a social conservative. Let me use a Washington Post article to explain.

What Democrats Would Do

By Harold Meyerson, Wednesday, October 18, 2006; A21

Against their better judgment, the Democrats are starting to taste it. In the House, the number of Republican incumbents polling under 50 percent considerably exceeds the number of seats the Democrats need to pick up to make Nancy Pelosi speaker. Controlling the Senate depends on winning two of the contests in three Upper South states -- Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia -- that could go either way.
… let's look at the legislation that the Democrats would push through the House and just maybe through the Senate…
In the House, the Democrats have made clear that there's a first tier of legislation they mean to bring to a vote almost immediately after the new Congress convenes. It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished…
In the course of this year's campaign, Democrats have been pleasantly surprised by the support their proposals for greater energy independence have won in all regions and sectors of the country. They will surely boost funding for alternative energy projects, which they see as a way not just to reduce greenhouse gases but to generate jobs as well. Many congressional Democrats also want to mandate stricter fuel efficiency standards, traditionally a cause that some auto-state Democrats have opposed, even though the Big Three's resistance to such standards is one reason their sales are plummeting…

So if the Democrats win they will vote to raise the minimum wage, allow Medicare to get lower prescription drug prices for the elderly, help get college students out of debt and make college more affordable, follow the 9-11 recommendations which would include fixing our broken borders and ports (although I am not so sure they would), and they would get this country off of oil and head us down the road of alternative fuels, hopefully similar to Brazil and their use of sugar cane to power all their automobiles.
As far as stem-cell research goes, I am still undecided on the issue because I don’t know if there is a period where the embryonic stem cells can no longer be used to create life, but are still viable for research.
But, I don’t see anything else in this list that I would be against. In many ways I am all for the Democratic economic platform.
Now, this does not mean that I am going to vote Democratic. Being a social conservative is much more important to me than being a fiscal liberal. Although this article went out of its way to pick the economic issues that a majority of Americans would agree with, it left out all the social legislation that would be enacted by the Democrats, and that is where my support for the Democratic Party ends. This article did not talk about how Democrats would legislate immigration, abortion, the Pledge of Allegiance, gay marriage, Religious expression, etc. Gone are the religious Democrats with only the rarest of exceptions, so I don’t think I can get behind a party that treats those who are religious as fanatics or zealots or Christian whackos.
Neither party really represents me, but I am left with a choice of voting for Democrats who I agree with fiscally or Republicans who I agree with socially. My wallet is not making this decision though. I am voting in November for a Representative and a Senator who I want to represent me because of their voting records and who they are as people.

3 Comments:

Blogger Rogue Mariner said...

Kind of makes you wish for a real, solid third party candidate, doesn't it?

Thu Oct 19, 10:42:00 AM  
Blogger Bobkatt said...

Publius, I share your concern about stem cell research. Remember, the government currently does not outlaw any stem cell research, it only outlaws using government monies for embryonic research. If this really has the potential that is suggested, why aren't private funds being used more, such as the Gates foundation, George Soros, the huge drug companies. etc. And also other nations are currently able to do all the research they want. I personally believe that the rewards are over optimist. But that said, I wouldn't be too upset if the law changed because I know so many Americans are for it and I believe in democracy.

Thu Oct 19, 06:21:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Rogue, even if there was a third party, like Libertarians, I doubt it would be something I would vote for, unless I led the party.

Bobkatt, that is true. I don’t know in which other areas the government uses tax money to fund research. I hope the government did not fund research for Viagra or just any drug. So it is a topic that I don’t know enough about to be definitive on the topic. Like I said, I would like to know if stem cells can still be used for research after they are no longer viable to reproduction.

Sun Oct 22, 12:00:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home